tv [untitled] July 26, 2013 6:00pm-6:31pm PDT
that will, i think, allow to succeed more than anything else. i came from the private sector and looking at honestly answering the question did i have something different to offer that i thought would be valuable it san francisco right now and i think a hrrpbl part of our -- large part of problems are financial and with my background i think i can add a lot of value and that is why i decided to bet in the race. >> it means there might be some small profit if you run it correctly but not always. that is something we really need to keep in mind in our city government. from my point of view is that. we have to figure out what is it lake -- like to be a business person in the city and what we can do to not only have full restaurants and bars but making sure it is worth it to continue to open successful places that make our community that much better. >> we have a huge unemployment
rate in san francisco. it is about 9.6%. the fact that we have not done much about that in city hall i think has it change. that certainly is something i will be focused on in the beginning here in city hall. putting people back to work. it is an individual issue but it is a family issue and we've a lot of families still struggling and i think people have lost sight of that. hopefully we will be getting out of the recession soon but we need to do a lot to accelerate getting out of that recession, making sure families are back at work and children are provided for. to me that is my biggest priority. i think that we do lose a lot of sight in the past district supervisors lost sight of the fact that we do represent san francisco as a whole and we need to make sure in city hall we are enacting policies, laws and legislation that move the city forward as a whole. these are the neighborhoods i grew up in, so for me it is fun to be in them to really understand what is going on and be able it fundamentals some of
the thinking and some of the people that are making decisions. >> right here we played football. flag football right here every year. we hung out right in the gym. directors looked after us. parents used to check in but not only one parent, they checked on all the kids. that is what is great about this district, the community. the family base of everything. >> exactly. and look how you turned out. you are doing ok. >> doing all right. two local city guys. >> there you go. supervisor wiener: what we have
here is a very important project and a very important mission and a completely reasonable objection of neighbors who are concerned about a five-story building going in on their block, which is something we see in san francisco all the time, and there is nothing exceptional or inappropriate about people taking issue with the size of a building. i grow up in the philadelphia area, in new jersey, went to school up and down the east coast. i went to undergrad at duke university and law school at harvard. after clerking for a judge, i came out here and have been in here for the last 14 years. i always assumed i would go back to the philadelphia area because that is where my family is, but i was always interested in sanford cisco in terms of the city, culture, the amazing lgbt community -- i was always
interested in san francisco. i am an attorney. i started off in private practice, doing complex litigation. in 2002, i moved to the san francisco city attorney's office, where our work on the trial team, doing trials for the city and doing my own cases and supervising a team of attorneys as well. another huge issue confronting the city is the deferred maintenance on our infrastructure. we have a lot of infrastructure that has been deteriorating because we have not maintained it properly, from our roads to our sewer system to muni. we need to be much more diligent about maintaining our infrastructure. i have been interested in politics since i was a kid. i have worked on campaigns since i was a teenager. i was involved in campaigning against senator jesse helms when
i was in college. when i came out here i was not initially involved politically. i was involved in community work, helping to build the lgbt community center, doing neighborhood work, and i eventually started doing campaigns and gradually got more involved in democratic party politics. ultimately, in 2004, i ran for the democratic county central committee and ended up chairing the committee. it was a gradual process for me. by the time i started thinking about running for supervisor, it made sense because of my involvement in the community and the politics. i knock on about $15,000 -- i knocked on about 15,000 doors and a huge amount of people. the best way to learn about the city and what people want and what people's concerns are. i feel like i know so much more than before i started
campaigning. i am a good liberal democrat. in the san francisco, miniature spectrum, i am considered pretty middle of the road. one thing about me is i am very independent when it comes to the issues, and i do not vote on party lines. i judge each issue on its merit. we have provided woefully inadequate support for our transition-age youth, and when we do not provide that support, we end up causing other problems. it is not like it disappears. these are our youth, who are here in our community, and we need to make sure we are providing services for them. yesterday, we had a hearing on the dcyf budget, and i was very disappointed with one aspect of the budget, particularly the alt and backs were being eliminated
-- that all add-backs were being eliminated on a number of different subjects. i do not agree with that. i am in discussions with dcyf, and i am is hopeful we will be able to work something out. my predecessor was always committed to making sure funding occurred, and i will continue to do that, so you have an ally in me. the budget is the most eminent issue, and we do have a structural budget deficit in the city, so we need to deal, of course, with the short-term balancing our budget in a way that does not decimate city services that people rely on, but also to address our long- term structural budget deficit, and that means implementing some budget reforms. smooth out our budget process so it is not a boom/bust kind of budget. reforming our pension system and
retiree health care system so that they are stable. we do a decent job providing low-income housing. we do a terrible job providing housing for low or middle class and middle-class people, people who are working and paying taxes that we need to have here for a functioning economy, so i am looking for ways to try to fund that, particularly for essential employees like teachers, nurses, first responders. projects coming up in the city like the renovation of dolores park, which is a once in 50 years opportunity to define what the park is and what changes we want to make to it. that will be a very significant projects. [inaudible] when was the last time it rained? there are puddles.
we elect our supervisors by district, and it is very important to pay attention to the district, to be engaged in projects in the district, but we also represent the whole city. any supervisor that just focuses on the district without addressing the citywide issues is not doing his or her job. every day, i'd make sure i am working both on the citywide issues and on district issues. test. >> good morning, everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors for june 24th. i'm mark farrell. i'm joined by supervisor and the
vice chair and others. i'd like to thank the members of the sftv for according this as well as the clerk. mr. clerk any announcements >> yes, please silence all cell phones and other documents. all documents shall be submitted to the clerk. all items will be on the agenda >> thank you, colleagues we have one item. and from the department of technology. so mr. clerk call item number one >> the ordinance to retroactively accept the grant from the national science of foundations and ordinance 9645
to accept the position at the department of technology and a okay good morning. i'm ken i'm representing the department of technology. the national science foundation awarded to the san francisco the grant to cover the costs of mr. chris intergovernmental science technology office. the amendment provided that all direct costs including salary and fringe will be reimbursed and this is to accept this agreement in the expenditure of the funds >> colleagues any questions? and a okay. we don't have a budget analyst report so we'll
move on to public comment. that i public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this item to full board >> okay without opposition. mr. clerk call items 23 and 3 >> item number two the appropriation for all expenditures to the departments of city and county of san francisco as of may 31st for fiscal years 2014 and 15. >> item number 3 the salary owns for fiscal years june 2014 and 15. >> okay. thank you mr. clerk. >> colleagues we have the beginning of week two here and a number of departments first up our assessor report.
w d. >> good morning todd director of the office of workforce have meant. we're in all the time with the budget analyst recommendations. i want to thank our cf o for working together over the past week >> okay. thank you. >> any questions. okay. can we go to the report and on page 12 our recommended rescues are together with the un
- they total 55978 in n fourteen >> colleagues any questions for mr. rose? and a okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any other questions for the department >> i'm sure they'll all go like this. colleagues can i have a motion >> so moved. >> okay. so moved. we have our planning department welcome back >> good morning john ram with the planning department. we are in agreement that there would be i think the number $360,000 in cuts. i also just wanted to mention the policy issue that was placed
the budget analyst report. we're taking the steps to have you approve the numbers of positions that are not funded to allow the flexibility in the coming budget noois the money does come in. it would allow us to hire people more quickly coming presumably if the funds don't come in. that is the intent of doing that it's our experience that the hiring can take 6 months that gets us favor behind >> any questions. >> mr. rose our report please. mr. chairman and members of the committee own page 20 our recommended reductions are 229 and in fourteen, 15 our
recommend reductions are 369. >> any comments? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 20 of the report - 23 of our report we continue to make the same recommendations that the policy recommended we're have 9 new positions that are not funded. we consider that to be a policy decision and we recommended they be 10 year positions >> okay supervisor breed question? >> specifically for the amount that's recommended to reduce is not a part of the general funds enemy correct? >> you raised this question last week and mr. rosenfield is here to respond.
the committee has already discussed those are general fund reductions >> thank you. >> supervisor breed this is really a choice for the committee to make. of the $350,000 that has been requested. $240,000 can be taken as a general fund reduction. but the balance of those r is a choice to make the reduction in a way whether you take is in a reduction of the fee revenue and the savings wouldn't flowback through the general fund >> based upon this committees inquiry we strongly recommended i take it for a reduction.
>> and i'd like to make a motion that we take it as a general fund reduction completely. >> okay. why don't we do that on the - actually let me ask mr. city attorney i want to make sure we decide the policy can we talk about the oppositions. i assume we can approve those but can you clarify your recommendation >> my recommendation is that they - there's two things before you mr. chairman as i understand. one is our recommendations that are not a policy on page 20 and supervisor breed has made a further you amendment that be a
general fund expect for the one half of fund. the policy recommendation on page 23 they are stating it's somewhat unusual for a department to request new positions where there's no money in the budget for them but the department wants to expedite so when they're able to get the funds they can higher the positions right away. first of all, we're saying it's a policy that's up to you to decide whether you want to approve the recommendation but that you want to approve the positions we ask they be limited positions so we're saying for the term of respected project for example, if the project lasted for two years they should be limited for two years ago as opposed to creating new ongoing positions forever
>> are all those positions project based? >> the way their currently proposed they're not limited tenure but we've hired i 15 people because of the economy and those are all limited tenuous u you are i'm hoping those won't be. it's hard to define them as a project because they're working on the environmental reviews as part of the private projects come in the door >> but if you don't have limited tenure they'll be buried in the budget and we wouldn't call them out again basis the committee has approved them for permanent positions. >> i would say that two years gives us flexibility so long as it's notes 6 months. >> two years is fin.
>> can i ask the department to talk about the safes inform the general fund or simply general fees and a thank you. in the decision we did with the budget analyst offices those are fee reductions. there's a capture of policy issues. one it simply that the department is in the position now where the developers and fee pairs are paying for all activities save 10 percent. in past years it was thirty percent and there was about 70 percent of the departments budget that was being paid out of fees and it is in terms of our actual have meant preview. we've been reduced substantially
they're paying for streetscape work and the park program. i think there's a serious policy issue whether that's appropriate. i know that community members are concerned about the prospective that the developers are paying for all our with work. i will say that our general proposal is actually thirty percent loerp than last year's allocation. so we're taking a a bigger cut than the mayor's office has asked us but we want to justify the non project work we do >> supervisor breed. >> my thing is broken so i can't push in - but i want to know the problem with the - and
a we're doing streetscape work like on third and there's a lot of other work that is not directly - we don't charge a fee for and i think there's a prospective that the developers are paying for the projects but they're paying to review their projects. >> so i'm trying to understand i don't think i've gotten a clear answer to justify why this shouldn't come from the general fund allocation. what impacts it's not clear, you know, whether or not there would be, you know, a significant impact to our department if we
fund savings does that have an impact on fees in the department. >> it will likely have an impact on fee not this year because our revenues are strong but in a few years we'll have to increase the fees. >> we have not increased fees in four years. >> i understand and support the desire to take, you know, to try to take savings to the general fund so we can reallocate those funds to our prioritys but i don't think i'll be supporting the motion. >> okay. so we have two issues
before us one the actual supervisor breed made a motion again, i appreciate the comments and more than anyone i appreciate the need in terms of general fund revenue here but i krir with supervisor on this item. so why don't we have a vote on supervisors breeds motion to accept the budget analysts recommendations for the general fund >> on that motion (calling names) the motion passes. and on the policy matter in terms of hiring personally - mr.
ram i appreciate our comments come back and having the tenure positions to two terms. i appreciate why you're doing this it is unusual but especially in the have meant world i understand the hiring plans but if you come o come back next year we'll have scrutiny that these are passing. so can i have a limited term for two years >> okay. up next department of technology. mark welcome back >> good morning i'm mark director of the department of technology. first looked like to thank the analysts katie for a productive